In a few years this had all
changed. An environmental movement had erupted and willfully selected the
whale as a symbol of man’s irresponsible use of resources. The choice was
excellent. The early history of IWC oversaw the decline of most of the
great whales through severe over harvesting, even in the face of contrary
recommendations from their Scientific Committee. The whales captured public
imagination- the term charismatic megafauna- is appropriate. Also, at least
in the United States, where most of the action was initiated, whales had no
economic importance. By the mid- 1970's the pressures from the
environmental community caused important changes in the IWC. The
elimination of the Blue Whale Unit, forcing the management of whales by
species and stocks and the implementation of the New Management Procedures,
provided a strong and conservative underpinning for whale management. An
era of successful resource management was anticipated- a prediction that
was foolishly optimistic.
A cadre of animal protection organizations, with help by the United
States, recruited new member states to IWC that were not whaling nations-
they were anti-whaling. The original 14 nations are now 40 and the
anti-whalers, including many who once whaled- joined together and passed
the total moratorium on commercial whaling currently in effect.
The IWC Scientific Committee (SC) has modified the NMP and created a
very conservative approach- the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), which
the IWC refuses to implement. This inaction is not because of fear of
failure of the RMP- the fear is that it will work and that whales will be
harvested- with the approval of IWC- not in spite of IWC.
What can be done? I think it is important to better understand what has
happened and why. I have heard the claim that the U.S. position is racist.
This is not true- we have imposed burdens not only on our fishermen, as
described above, but also on our loggers as in the case of the spotted owl
or on many other elements of our community involved with resource
industries, in our desire for both environmental and endangered species
protection. Being somewhat cynical I would also point out that these harsh
actions almost always involve relatively small, not very powerful elements
of our community.
I have heard it suggested that the new administration lacks the
environmental zeal of its predecessor and the whaling issue will disappear
as a problem. The first part of the statement may be true- the second half,
however, does not follow. The whale issue remains a politician’s dream in
the U.S. and much of the west. A strong defense of the whales proves the
defender to be a conservationist while having zero negative impacts- no
constituents lose their jobs if commercial whaling is banned and nobody
changes their eating habits. Rather than ease off on the whaling issue it
seems possible that compromises of the environment to permit more oil
exploration, logging, and continued production of large numbers of fuel
consuming, polluting SUV’s, for example, will increase the need for the
green credentials that anti-whaling provides.
What is the hope? There are many people, probably most, if polls are
correct, who do not object to harvesting whales. They have to be convinced,
however, a harvest can be sustained, that the take is conducted as humanely
as possible and that the whales will be used for important purposes- mainly
food. It is also absolutely necessary to assure that an independent body
observes the hunt and guarantees that no quota is exceeded. There must be
an element of trust developed by the non-whaling world that all of the
above requirements are met.
How should Japan act in the face of the IWC stalemate? It may be
presumptuous and possibly rude for me to answer this question. On the other
hand, it is probably reasonable to suggest some options.
Back
